While awaiting my flight in the gate area at LaGuardia the other night I noticed a young woman across from me. She was lugging a huge "Louis Vitton" roller bag and a matching purse. Prolly $6-8,000 in designer swag in her possession. The fact that she was flying coach, and that on any given day you can spot your average coed strutting around in head-to-toe "Burberry", tells me her accoutrements were fake.
Knockoffs are invading the appeals of some marketers as well. With the proliferation of "eco-labels" (there are over 300 "green" labels and counting, according to the Web site ecolabelling.org) the bar is being lowered on what exactly it means to be green. As put recently in popularmechanics.com, "It's easy to take a cynical attitude toward this profusion of promises. As 'green' has gone mainstream, it's become tough to tell the true contenders from the imposters who slap on seductive stickers."
A recent case in point: Faced with a competitor's use of a recognized third party sustainability label in its marketing materials, one maker of an outdoor building product responded by simply making up its own "green" label. Not letting a stringent life cycle analysis by an independent testing agency get in their way, they just popped into their ad and brochure a slick logo, with a bit of copy containing their spurious green promise. They do it because they feel they can; most observers won't know the difference. (I'm thinking the designer of that fake green logo did so while wearing his street corner Rolex.)
But they, like others, are contributing to all the green noise out there, causing consumers and retailers alike to wonder what's a legitimate green claim and what's not. If you've ever scratched your head about what's green and what's greenwash, there is a reliable source to which you can turn. The Wall Street Journal recently offered a list of green label programs recognized as good benchmarks by experts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123862823846680371.html
Also, do your own research. Google the label on the box or in the ad and make your own judgement as to its authenticity. Hopefully, some day there will be a universal green standard and the deceitful pitchmen will have to think of other ways to compensate for a weak value proposition.
Knockoffs are invading the appeals of some marketers as well. With the proliferation of "eco-labels" (there are over 300 "green" labels and counting, according to the Web site ecolabelling.org) the bar is being lowered on what exactly it means to be green. As put recently in popularmechanics.com, "It's easy to take a cynical attitude toward this profusion of promises. As 'green' has gone mainstream, it's become tough to tell the true contenders from the imposters who slap on seductive stickers."
A recent case in point: Faced with a competitor's use of a recognized third party sustainability label in its marketing materials, one maker of an outdoor building product responded by simply making up its own "green" label. Not letting a stringent life cycle analysis by an independent testing agency get in their way, they just popped into their ad and brochure a slick logo, with a bit of copy containing their spurious green promise. They do it because they feel they can; most observers won't know the difference. (I'm thinking the designer of that fake green logo did so while wearing his street corner Rolex.)
But they, like others, are contributing to all the green noise out there, causing consumers and retailers alike to wonder what's a legitimate green claim and what's not. If you've ever scratched your head about what's green and what's greenwash, there is a reliable source to which you can turn. The Wall Street Journal recently offered a list of green label programs recognized as good benchmarks by experts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123862823846680371.html
Also, do your own research. Google the label on the box or in the ad and make your own judgement as to its authenticity. Hopefully, some day there will be a universal green standard and the deceitful pitchmen will have to think of other ways to compensate for a weak value proposition.
up the majority of the pressure treated wood sold in the US. Unlike ACQ, a competing formula, it does not color the wood green, is much less corrosive to fasteners and can be used in direct contact with aluminum. For those reasons, and because it costs about the same as other common formulations, MCQ has become the preferred wood preservative among contractors and do-it-yourself'ers alike. Plus, 6 years of field testing, building code acceptance (ICC - ES), affirmative scientific performance reviews (Forest Products Journal, Nov 2008) and a lifetime limited warranty combine to provide peace of mind to its users.
Powered by Compendium